BackgroundWhen the COVID-19 pandemic restricted visitation between intensive care unit patients and their families, the virtual intensive care unit (vICU) in our large tertiary hospital was adapted to facilitate virtual family visitation. The objective of this paper is to document findings from interviews conducted with family members on three categories: (1) feelings experienced during the visit, (2) barriers, challenges or concerns faced using this service, and (3) opportunities for improvements.MethodsFamily members were interviewed postvisit via phone. For category 1 (feelings), automated analysis in Python using the Valence Aware Dictionary for sentiment Reasoner package produced weighted valence (extent of positive, negative or neutral emotive connotations) of the interviewees’ word choices. Outputs were compared with a manual coder’s valence ratings to assess reliability. Two raters conducted inductive thematic analysis on the notes from these interviews to analyse categories 2 (barriers) and 3 (opportunities).ResultsValence-based and manual sentiment analysis of 230 comments received on feelings showed over 86% positive sentiments (88.2% and 86.8%, respectively) with some neutral (7.3% and 6.8%) and negative (4.5% and 6.4%) sentiments. The qualitative analysis of data from 57 participants who commented on barriers showed four primary concerns: inability to communicate due to patient status (44% of respondents); technical difficulties (35%); lack of touch and physical presence (11%); and frequency and clarity of communications with the care team (11%). Suggested improvements from 59 participants included: on demand access (51%); improved communication with the care team (17%); improved scheduling processes (10%); and improved system feedback and technical capabilities (17%).ConclusionsUse of vICU for remote family visitations evoked happiness, joy, gratitude and relief and a sense of closure for those who lost loved ones. Identified areas for concern and improvement should be addressed in future implementations of telecritical care for this purpose.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Telemedicine is an emerging medium for the delivery of ambulatory care, but the reimbursement profile of telemedicine visits in the surgical setting has not been well studied. Methods: A retrospective assessment of telemedicine encounters for thyroid and parathyroid conditions occurring from April 2015 to April 2017 was performed. Financial reimbursement from commercial payers for new and established patient visits were compared between telemedicine visits and in-person visits. Patient "savings" in terms of travel distance and drive time were calculated. Results: A total of 290 telemedicine encounters were conducted; 7% were initial consultations, 47% were postoperative visits, and 45% were follow-up visits. The median patient age was 57 years. The median round-trip travel distance saved was 123.6 miles with estimated drive time of 2.4 hours per encounter. In 2% of cases, a second in-person visit within the 90-day global period occurred after a postoperative telemedicine encounter. Charges were filed for 67 encounters. The initial unpaid claims rate was 6%, which was consistent with the unpaid claims rate for in-person visits. The charge-to-collection ratio was comparable to that of in-person visits. There was a higher ratio of level 2 visits in the telemedicine encounters. Over the study period, 70 clinic hours were liberated via the use of telemedicine. Conclusion: Endocrine surgery telemedicine visits have the same level for level reimbursement profile as in-person visits. Down-coding and elimination of components of in-office physical examinations may lead to modest decreases in overall reimbursement. Other advantages include reallocation of clinic resources and decreased travel burden for patients.

Background Despite the growth of and media hype about mobile health (mHealth), there is a paucity of literature supporting the effectiveness of widespread implementation of mHealth technologies. Objective This study aimed to assess whether an innovative mHealth technology system with several overlapping purposes can impact (1) clinical outcomes (ie, readmission rates, revisit rates, and length of stay) and (2) patient-centered care outcomes (ie, patient engagement, patient experience, and patient satisfaction). Methods We compared all patients (2059 patients) of participating orthopedic surgeons using mHealth technology with all patients of nonparticipating orthopedic surgeons (2554 patients). The analyses included Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables, and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Logistic regression models were performed on categorical outcomes and a gamma-distributed model for continuous variables. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Results The inpatient readmission rates for the nonparticipating group when compared with the participating group were higher and demonstrated higher odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 106/2636, 4.02% and participating group 54/2048, 2.64%; OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.13; P=.04), 60-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 194/2636, 7.36% and participating group 85/2048, 4.15%; OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.39; P<.001), and 90-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 261/2636, 9.90% and participating group 115/2048, 5.62%; OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.34; P<.001). The length of stay for the nonparticipating cohort was longer at 1.90 days, whereas the length of stay for the participating cohort was 1.50 days (mean 1.87, SD 2 vs mean 1.50, SD 1.37; P<.001). Patients treated by participating surgeons received and read text messages using mHealth 83% of the time and read emails 84% of the time. Patients responded to 60% of the text messages and 53% of the email surveys. Patients were least responsive to digital monitoring questions when the hospital asked them to do something, and they were most engaged with emails that did not require action, including informational content. A total of 96% (558/580) of patients indicated high satisfaction with using mHealth technology to support their care. Only 0.40% (75/2059) patients opted-out of the mHealth technology program after enrollment. Conclusions A novel, multicomponent, pathway-driven, patient-facing mHealth technology can positively impact patient outcomes and patient-reported experiences. These technologies can empower patients to play a more active and meaningful role in improving their outcomes. There is a deep need, however, for a better understanding of the interactions between patients, technology, and health care providers. Future research is needed to (1) help identify, address, and improve technology usability and effectiveness; (2) understand patient and provider attributes that support adoption, uptake, and sustainability; and (3) understand the factors that contribute to barriers of technology adoption and how best to overcome them.

Patients with PTC who are potential candidates for lobectomy often require total thyroidectomy based on microscopic ETE detected on surgical pathology. A detailed sonographic assessment of ETE can reliably rule out microscopic ETE, reducing the rate of potentially avoidable total thyroidectomy.